I'd imagine that having your data split across multiple tablespaces (and therefore potentially multiple disks) would improve the seek times.
Your whole premise behind the question is faulty. You do not need to split your data between tablespaces to spread the i/o across more disks, you need to increase the number of disks in your RAID10 or (better still) ASM array. You will get less performance gain, less space efficiency and far more maintenance trying to manually tune the i/o like you are suggesting.
ASM beats RAID10 primarily because it understands the data being written to it - so for example it can vary the stripe size between data blocks and logs.
You've got a few different questions in here:
Q: It takes a very long time to access the sales of a given store or a given item for any period.
A: To troubleshoot that, we would need to see the execution plans of the queries involved, plus know a little about the query runtime and the hardware involved. 10mm rows in a header table and 110mm rows in a detail table isn't much at all for SQL Server, so this should be a solvable problem.
Q: (Partitioning) worked great for finding the sales of an item. The problem is that many of the reports require the StoreID in addition to being over a specific date range.
A: Correct, partitioning rarely makes SELECT queries faster. It's more about improving performance of bulk loads, specifically partition switching. I wouldn't think of partitioning as a solution to this problem, and indeed, it will actually make most queries worse.
Q: Is there a preferred, correct, standard, etc. method for dealing with tables in the Master/Detail pattern in order to increase performance?
A: Absolutely - archive older data. Figure out what you're going to let users query online at high speed, and then beyond that, move the data into a separate set of archive tables. You can use a partitioned view over the old and new tables in order to give them a single seamless view into the data for easier reporting too.
There's a lot of advantages to this approach. For example, when you want to add additional fields to the current table, you can do that quickly without having to deal with a large amount of archive data. If you want to add lots of indexes to the old archive data, you can - because it's not getting tons of inserts/updates/deletes anymore. If you split the old and new data into different databases, you can even use different backup/recovery strategies with them - even while the view is in place, and users don't know the data is split.
Best Answer
You can use partition by reference option Example :
Some restricions :
NOTE:
Reference Partitioning has strong advantages and strong limitations, so its use requires careful planning.
Reference Partitioning should not simply be used wherever possible.
Use of Reference Partitioning appears best suited for very large tables and related tables, whose contents share the same life cycle.